<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (12) TMI 395 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117335</link>
    <description>In tariff classification disputes, the party seeking to displace an existing classification must produce evidence of the goods&#039; character and dimensions. The Revenue did not establish that bazaar scrap and spring leaves were classifiable as angles, shapes and sections under Chapter 72, because the necessary factual basis to disturb the original classification was absent. On that footing, the denial of exemption under the relevant notification was upheld, as the exemption claim depended on the classification position. The appellate authority&#039;s modification of the original order was therefore treated as legally proper, and the classification view adopted below was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:04:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 395 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117335</link>
      <description>In tariff classification disputes, the party seeking to displace an existing classification must produce evidence of the goods&#039; character and dimensions. The Revenue did not establish that bazaar scrap and spring leaves were classifiable as angles, shapes and sections under Chapter 72, because the necessary factual basis to disturb the original classification was absent. On that footing, the denial of exemption under the relevant notification was upheld, as the exemption claim depended on the classification position. The appellate authority&#039;s modification of the original order was therefore treated as legally proper, and the classification view adopted below was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>